United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Chairman, Committee on
the Budget, House of Representatives
December 1998
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
Administrative
Streamlining Is
Expected to Continue
Through 2002
GAO/RCED-99-34
GAO
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division
B-281418
December 11, 1998
The Honorable John R. Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 19941 (Reorganization Act of 1994) provided the
Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to streamline and reorganize
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to achieve greater efficiency,
effectiveness, and economy in its organization and management of
programs and activities. In earlier reports, we stated that USDA has made
progress in achieving several specific goals set forth in the act.2 This
progress included reducing the number of employees by nearly 20,000,
consolidating headquarters offices, and combining field offices. However,
we reported that a number of issues concerning administrative
streamlining warranted continued attention, such as USDA’s progress in
consolidating operations at the state level and in developing performance
measures to determine the extent of the efficiencies and economies
achieved.
As a result of the issues raised in our previous work, you asked us to
provide you with additional information concerning USDA’s progress in
streamlining its administrative operations. Specifically, you asked us to
report on USDA’s progress in (1) reducing the number of administrative
staff departmentwide; (2) consolidating and streamlining administrative
support structures for seven field-based agencies, particularly at the state
office level;3 and (3) measuring the savings and efficiencies realized as a
result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining efforts.
1
P.L. 103-354 (Oct. 13, 1994).
2
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Update on Reorganization and Streamlining Efforts
(GAO/RCED-97-186R, June 24, 1997) and U.S. Department of Agriculture: Status of USDA’s
Reorganization (GAO/RCED-98-109R, Mar. 19, 1998).
3
Three of these agencies—the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and Foreign
Agricultural Service—are in the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services mission area. Three
others—the Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities
Service—are in the Rural Development mission area. The seventh agency—the Natural Resources
Conservation Service—is one of two agencies in the Natural Resources and Environment mission area.
The second agency in the mission area, the Forest Service, which has its own administrative support
structure, is not participating in the consolidation and streamlining with the other field-based agencies.
While the Farm Service Agency provides administrative support for the Risk Management Agency and
Foreign Agricultural Service, these two agencies do not operate from state offices.
Page 1
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Results in Brief
From fiscal year 19934 through fiscal year 1998, USDA reduced its
departmentwide administrative staff for four administrative
functions—human resources, budgeting, accounting and auditing, and
acquisition—from about 10,300 to an estimated 8,800, or by 15 percent.
USDA estimates that the number of administrative staff will decrease by an
additional 250 by the end of fiscal year 1999. At that time, about 8,550
administrative staff will support approximately 98,500 program staff. USDA
has no estimates for further departmentwide reductions in administrative
staffing beyond 1999.
As of November 1998, USDA had not yet begun to implement its plan to
consolidate and streamline administrative functions at the state office
level. In October 1998, USDA had developed a plan, subject to the
Secretary’s approval, that will consolidate the administrative functions for
the agencies into a single administrative office for each state. These new
state offices will receive policy guidance from a newly created
headquarters Support Service Bureau and report to a board of directors
composed of the state leaders of the Farm Service Agency, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and Rural Development. The plan, which
is expected to be fully implemented by 2002, requires the completion of a
number of time-consuming and potentially costly actions, including
relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures, and
instituting common computing systems. Furthermore, although it appears
that administrative consolidation may provide long-term savings and
efficiencies, USDA may incur additional costs to implement this
consolidation in the short term.
has no plans to develop performance measures to determine the
economies and efficiencies realized as a result of its departmentwide
streamlining actions. USDA officials believe that a single
measure—personnel reductions—serves as a sufficient indicator of the
Department’s overall performance. However, without additional
performance measures, such as those that measure the quality of service
delivery, USDA will not know the extent to which it has accomplished the
1994 act’s overall objective of achieving greater efficiency, effectiveness,
and economy in the organization and management of its programs and
activities.
USDA
4
1993 is the baseline date established by the National Performance Review and the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 for determining workforce reductions (P.L. 103-226, Mar. 30, 1994).
Page 2
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Background
In response to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and
the Vice-President’s National Performance Review (NPR), the Secretary of
Agriculture initiated a departmental reorganization to refocus and simplify
the Department’s headquarters structure, improve accountability and
service to customers, reform the Department’s field structure, and reduce
costs. Several components of the Secretary’s reorganization required
enabling legislation, which the Congress provided in the Reorganization
Act of 1994.
In addition to granting USDA broad authority for streamlining and
reorganization, the Reorganization Act of 1994 directed USDA to (1) reduce
the number of full-time-equivalent staff by at least 7,500 by the end of
fiscal year 1999, (2) reduce the number of staff so that the percentage of
the reduction in headquarters is at least twice that in the field offices,
(3) consolidate headquarters offices, and (4) combine field offices and
have them share resources.
By the end of fiscal year 1997, USDA had achieved most of the act’s goals. It
had reduced its overall staff-years by nearly 20,000, from about 129,500 in
1993 to about 110,000 by the end of 1997; 22 percent of the reductions
occurred in headquarters, and about 13 percent occurred in field offices.
In addition, the number of USDA agencies fell from 43 to 29, most of which
are under seven mission areas.5 (App. I shows USDA’s staff by mission area
and agencies and headquarters staff offices.) Of the seven mission areas,
five include more than one agency. In four of these five mission areas,6
USDA has designated one agency as the lead administrative agency for the
mission area. (USDA’s current administrative structure is shown in app. II.)
Finally, USDA reduced the number of its county office locations by about
30 percent, from about 3,760 in 1994 to about 2,700 in 1997.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and Rural Development (RD)—through the Rural Housing
Service—operate three separate administrative structures to provide
administrative support for seven field-based agencies7 in 50 states, two
territories, and several Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) overseas offices.
5
These mission areas are (1) Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; (2) Rural Development; (3) Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer Services; (4) Natural Resources and Environment; (5) Food Safety;
(6) Research, Education, and Economics; and (7) Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
6
The four mission areas are (1) Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; (2) Marketing and Regulatory
Programs; (3) Research, Education, and Economics; and (4) Rural Development.
7
FSA, Risk Management Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, NRCS, Rural Housing Service, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service.
Page 3
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
These seven agencies employed about 37,900 staff, or about 35 percent of
USDA’s total staff, in 1997 and are located in headquarters, about 150 state
offices, 5,800 county-based service centers, over 500 other support offices,
and several consolidated operations centers, such as FSA’s Management
Office in Kansas City, Missouri; RD’s Centralized Servicing Center in St.
Louis, Missouri; and NRCS’ National Science and Technology Consortium in
Fort Worth, Texas.
USDA Has Reduced
Administrative
Positions Overall
From fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1998, USDA reduced its
departmentwide administrative staff by 15 percent, from about 10,300 to
an estimated 8,800, in four areas identified by the NPR—human resources,
budgeting, accounting and auditing, and acquisition. Administrative staff
provide internal services for USDA’s program delivery staff, such as payroll
processing, financial management and reporting, and the purchasing of
supplies and equipment. USDA plans to have about 8,550 administrative
staff supporting a departmentwide program staff of approximately 98,500
by the end of fiscal year 1999.
Figure 1 shows the changes in the number of administrative staff for each
of the four administrative functions for fiscal years 1993 and 1998.
(Administrative staffing is shown in app. III.)
Page 4
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Figure 1: Changes in Departmentwide
Administrative Staff, Fiscal Years 1993
and 1998
Administrative staff
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
Accountants
Acquisition
and auditors
Administrative functions
Budgeting
Human
resources
1993
1998 Estimated
Legend
RBS = Rural Business-Cooperative Service
RHS = Rural Housing Service
RMA = Risk Management Agency
RUS = Rural Utilities Service
Source: USDA’s Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Changes to
Administrative
Operations for
Field-Based Agencies
Will Not Be Fully
Implemented Until
2002
As of November 1998, USDA had not consolidated administrative functions
for its field-based agencies at the state office level. However, in
October 1998, a USDA team submitted a plan (known as the Administrative
Convergence Plan) to the Secretary of Agriculture that will, upon
approval, implement this consolidation by 2002. USDA officials explained
that the plan, when fully implemented, is expected to reduce costs and
improve customer service and operating efficiencies. In addition, they said
the plan will require up to 4 years to implement because the Department
will need to complete a number of time-consuming and complex
Page 5
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
actions—relocating offices, developing common policies and procedures,
and instituting common computing systems. Even though these actions are
expected to provide savings and efficiencies in the long term, the
Department has not identified the costs it will incur in the short term to
achieve these savings. Furthermore, USDA officials commented that these
tasks are not likely to be accomplished in a timely and effective manner
unless a strong leader is appointed to oversee them.
USDA Has Not Yet Begun
to Implement Its
Administrative
Convergence Plan at the
State Level
expects to begin consolidating administrative functions at the state
level for its field-based agencies approximately 6 to 9 months following the
Secretary’s approval of the proposed October 1998 convergence plan.
Under the plan, a new office headquartered in Washington, D.C.—the
Support Services Bureau—will provide the administrative support now
provided separately by FSA, NRCS, and RD for seven field-based agencies.
(See fig. 2.)
USDA
Page 6
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Figure 2: Administrative Support Structure Before and After Creation of the Support Services Bureau
Current Admin Support Structure
(as of Nov. 1998)
7 agencies
7 agencies
3 support units
RBS
RHS
RUS
Proposed Structure After Consolidation
1 support units
RBS
RD
Deputy
for
Management
RHS
RUS
Support
Services
Bureau
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
Deputy
for
Management
FSA
RMA
FAS
FSA
RMA
FAS
FSA
Deputy
for
Management
Source: USDA’s Administrative Convergence Plan.
In addition to its office in Washington, D.C., the bureau will have a single
administrative support unit in each state and in each of its four
consolidated operations centers to carry out combined administrative
functions. The new state offices will receive policy guidance from the
headquarters Support Services Bureau and will report to a board of
directors composed of the state leaders of FSA, NRCS, and RD.
Page 7
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
While the NPR specifies only four administrative functions (personnel,
budgeting, accountants and auditors, and acquisition), USDA’s
Administrative Convergence Plan includes additional functions and
categorizes them differently. The plan’s functions include financial
management (excluding budgeting), human resources, civil rights,
information technology, and management services (such as procurement
and printing). By consolidating these functions into a single administrative
support unit in each state or consolidated operations center, USDA expects
to reduce the administrative staff for the seven field-based agencies by
45 percent from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 2002. However, by
1997, two-thirds of these reductions had already occurred. (See table 1.)
Table 1. Administrative Staff for the
Seven Field-Based Agencies, Fiscal
Years 1993 Through 2002
Number of full-time-equivalent staff
Administrative
function
Financial
management
Human resources
Management
services
Civil rights
Information
technology
Other
administrative
operationsb
Total
Fiscal
Fiscal
year 1993 year 1997
Percent
change
Staff
Fiscal
change
year
2002a from 1993
Percent
change
1,133
783
(30.9%)
756
(377)
(33.3%)
853
524
(38.6%)
473
(380)
(44.6%)
1,019
624
(38.8%)
405
(614)
(60.3%)
74
80
8.1%
164
90
121.6%
1,955
1,512
(22.7%)
(796)
(40.7%)
590
381
(35.4%)
116
(474)
(80.3%)
5,624
3,904
(30.6%)
3,073
(2,551)
(45.4%)
1,159
a
Proposed number of staff when convergence plan is fully implemented.
b
Includes administrative officers, program assistants, and secretaries.
Source: USDA’s Administrative Convergence Plan.
According to USDA officials, they did not implement streamlining at the
state office level earlier for two reasons. First, they were focused on
implementing the Secretary’s initiative to create consolidated
county-based service centers. And second, they were unable to reach
agreement among the affected agencies on how to achieve consolidation.
Page 8
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
A Number of Challenges
Need to Be Addressed
Before Implementation
Can Be Completed
USDA
Relocating Offices
Currently, in 28 states,8 the state offices for each of the different
field-based agencies are not located in the same facility (collocated), and
in 19 of these states, the offices are not even located in the same city. USDA
is planning to begin consolidating administrative functions before many of
these state offices have collocated. In those instances, the agencies will
continue to maintain staff in up to three separate offices. Consequently, in
these states, the benefits of sharing resources—reducing staff and
equipment and expanding staff expertise—will not be fully realized until
the agencies’ state offices are collocated. For example, in Kansas, the FSA,
NRCS, and RD state offices are located from 50 to 100 miles apart in three
separate cities. As a result, even though these agencies’ administrative
staff will be one organization on paper, they will continue to function in up
to three separate locations until the offices are collocated, requiring USDA
to retain more administrative staff and continue to pay for separate
equipment and facilities.
officials stated they must deal with several challenges to fully achieve
the cost savings, benefits, and efficiencies expected to be realized as a
result of implementing the administrative consolidation plan. These
challenges include relocating offices, developing common policies and
procedures, and adopting a common computing environment. In addition,
USDA officials said that strong leadership will be needed to implement the
plan and additional investments for collocating offices and modernizing
business processes and information technology will be required.
In addition, at least some of the 24 collocated state offices will need to be
reorganized before they can operate efficiently under the Administrative
Convergence Plan. For example, several collocated state offices have
separate office suites for each agency’s staff. Agency officials
acknowledged that to combine administrative staff into functional work
units under administrative convergence, it will be necessary to move staff
within existing office space, reconfigure existing office space, or move
agency operations to new facilities.
In other cases, collocated offices are already designed to operate
effectively under the planned administrative convergence. For example,
the new state office for FSA, NRCS, and RD in Boise, Idaho—opened in
February 1998—is expected to facilitate administrative convergence once
the plan is implemented. When the three agencies planned the new office,
they required that all employees in a functional area—such as human
8
When we use the term “states,” we are including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory
of Guam.
Page 9
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
resources or information technology—share a common work space. In
addition, the agencies share common mail rooms, printing equipment, and
other office facilities. According to state officials, their location in a shared
facility has already increased the efficiency of their operations by allowing
them to have fewer staff, less space, and less equipment.
estimates that it will cost as much as $29 million to collocate offices
in 24 of the 28 states where they are not currently collocated,9 including
moving personnel and acquiring new space, and an undetermined amount
to reconfigure existing space for collocated offices. Figure 3 shows the
states with collocated offices, and those with noncollocated offices. (App.
IV provides more detailed information on the noncollocated locations).
USDA
9
USDA has state cost analyses from 24 of the 28 noncollocated states. Alaska, Hawaii, Michigan, and
Puerto Rico have not yet submitted this information.
Page 10
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Figure 3: Location of Collocated and Noncollocated State Offices
AK
WA
MT
ME
ND
VT
MN
OR
ID
WI
SD
MI
NH
MA
NY
WY
NE
NV
CA
UT
PA
IA
IN
CO
KS
AZ
OK
NM
NJ
DE
OH
IL
WV
MO
KY
MD
NC
TN
AR
SC
GU
MS
TX
VA
RI
CT
AL
GA
LA
HI
FL
Greater than 50 miles
Less than 50 miles
Collocated
PR
Source: USDA documents.
Developing Common Policies
and Procedures
While FSA, NRCS, and RD are subject to the same administrative regulations,
each has developed a different approach to implementing them. As a
Page 11
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
result, there are slight to significant differences in the policies, procedures,
and business processes that each agency follows.
For example, NRCS and RD state offices have authority over personnel
actions for employees up to the level of General Schedule-13 and are
delegated authority to obligate funds for most categories of procurement.
In contrast, FSA state offices have far less authority over personnel actions
and procurement.
For budgeting, NRCS provides each state with a single budget allocation for
its program and administrative expenses. However, RD allocates specific
budget line items to its state offices for their individual programs, salaries,
and administrative expenses. FSA headquarters allocates the total number
of staff that each state may have each fiscal year and retains control over
certain state-level administrative expenses, such as office leasing and
information technology.
State office officials note that their agencies also need to develop common
business processes to standardize their personnel and recordkeeping
systems. Currently, the National Finance Center provides payroll
processing for USDA employees. However, NRCS uses a different process
than FSA and RD for entering personnel and payroll transactions
transmitted to the center.
Developing a Common
Computing Environment
To modernize and integrate the separate information systems currently
used by the agencies undergoing administrative convergence, USDA plans
to acquire a single, integrated information system—referred to as the
common computing environment. The common computing environment,
as part of USDA’s effort to modernize its business processes and
information technology, will consist of new computer hardware and
software applications. This new integrated system may require as many as
38,000 new personal computers and 24,000 printers, which will be
expected to operate in more than 3,000 locations nationwide. As we
reported in August 1998,10 USDA estimates that the costs of implementing a
common computing environment may exceed $2.6 billion over its
expected 15-year life cycle.11
10
USDA Service Centers: Multibillion-Dollar Effort to Modernize Processes and Technology Faces
Significant Risks (GAO/AIMD-98-168, Aug. 31, 1998).
11
Life-cycle costs represent those costs associated with planning, acquiring, developing, operating, and
maintaining the system from 1996 through 2011. These costs include, for example, the costs for
equipment and software, personnel, contractor support, and supplies.
Page 12
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
The effort to acquire and install this system will be significant, complex,
time-consuming, and costly. Achieving a common computing environment
requires these agencies to accomplish many activities, such as
reengineering and creating a common set of business processes, designing
common software, and determining the requirements for hardware. In
addition, FSA, NRCS, and RD have 150 existing software applications, many
of which must be modified. It is not clear when USDA will complete these
tasks. Some planning documents show that the tasks may be completed by
fiscal year 2002, while others show a completion date as late as fiscal year
2008. Until existing business applications are modified, USDA plans to
maintain and operate both the old and new information systems.
In our August 1998 report, we found several fundamental planning and
management weaknesses in the Department’s effort to modernize business
processes and technology for the agencies undergoing administrative
convergence. In light of these weaknesses, we suggested that the Congress
consider limiting funding for information technology for these agencies’
field offices to no more than the level needed to meet Year 2000
compliance requirements until appropriate action was taken to resolve
these weaknesses. USDA started acquiring new hardware and software for
its common computing environment at the end of fiscal year 1998, when it
purchased over 16,000 personal computers. While this purchase was
principally made to replace computers that are not Year 2000 compliant,
USDA also expects this procurement to enable its field-based agencies to
use common software applications that will support administrative
convergence in such areas as human resources, procurement, and travel.
Need for Strong
Leadership
officials emphasized the need for the Secretary to move quickly to fill
key leadership positions for the Support Services Bureau and charge the
appointed officials with the responsibility to implement the Administrative
Convergence Plan once it has been approved.12 According to the leader of
the implementation planning team, assigning leadership responsibilities
and providing the appropriate authority to carry out those responsibilities
are critical to the plan’s success, given the host of decisions to be made
and actions to be taken in implementing the convergence plan. These
decisions include determining how the new organization will be funded in
the long term, how authority will be delegated within the organization, and
how staff will be classified.
USDA
12
Key leadership positions, according to the leader of the implementation planning team, include the
Executive Director, Deputy Director/Chief Information Officer, and the top functional leaders for
human resources, financial management, management services, and civil rights.
Page 13
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
Currently, three separate administrative structures provide support to
seven agencies in 50 states, two territories, and several FAS overseas
offices. As mentioned earlier, these agencies have developed different
approaches to delivering administrative services to their customers. The
administrators for these three structures are focused on the delivery of
several programs in addition to administrative support. USDA officials said,
and we agree, that unless the Secretary moves quickly to appoint the
leaders to translate the plan into a workable operation, it is unlikely that
substantial progress will be made.
Additional Investments
Will Be Required Before
Long-Term Administrative
Savings Are Realized
While USDA has estimated the savings it will achieve through staff
reductions resulting from the administrative convergence, it has not
estimated the costs associated with the convergence. USDA officials believe
that administrative convergence will allow the Department to reduce the
number of administrative staff by 45 percent from 1993 through 2002.
However, they acknowledge that budgetary savings from staff reductions
will be decreased in the next several years by the costs of collocating state
offices, modernizing business processes, and acquiring and implementing
a common computing environment. If the administrative convergence is
fully implemented in 2002, the savings in administrative staff is projected
to total about $144 million annually.13 However, these savings will be
reduced by the approximately $29 million associated with merging offices
in 24 of the 28 states that do not yet have collocated offices and by several
million dollars annually for modernizing business processes and
implementing a common computing environment. The Administrative
Convergence Plan does not provide an estimate of these costs.
Savings and
Efficiencies Measures
Lacking
USDA
has not instituted, and has made no plans to develop, performance
measures to determine the economies and efficiencies realized as a result
of its departmentwide administrative streamlining. According to USDA
officials, staff reductions should serve as a sufficient indicator of the
Department’s savings and efficiencies because employees’ salary and
benefit costs typically represent a majority—about 85 percent—of salary
and administrative expenses. However, although it has developed savings
estimates associated with staff-year reductions, these estimates do not
include any offsetting expenses as a result of employee buyouts and
reductions in force. While staff-year reductions are certainly one indicator
of savings, absent other measures, USDA does not know the extent to which
13
Approximately $96 million of the projected $144 million in annual savings had been realized through
fiscal year 1997. Therefore, the future costs associated with administrative convergence must be offset
against the remaining $48 million in projected annual savings.
Page 14
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
it has improved service delivery, efficiency, and quality—key objectives of
the 1994 act and desired outcomes of the agencies’ ongoing restructuring
efforts. Additional outcome-oriented performance measures could help
USDA determine when it is achieving the overall objectives of the
Reorganization Act of 1994. For example, using the ratio of the number of
employees served per personnel specialist as a broad measure of
efficiency,14 we found that although USDA had reduced its personnel staff
departmentwide by 17 percent from September 1993 to September 1997,
the ratio decreased from 55 to 54 employees served by one personnel
specialist, indicating that the personnel reductions had not increased
efficiency. Other measures of effectiveness could include (1) financial
measures, such as cost per employee hired; (2) customer satisfaction
measures, such as those associated with responsiveness and quality; and
(3) process effectiveness measures, such as the time it takes to complete
specific administrative functions.
Conclusions
has made a number of organizational changes since 1994 to reduce its
staff and streamline its operations. However, USDA does not plan to
determine the extent to which its streamlining efforts have achieved the
objectives of the Reorganization Act of 1994, other than determining the
savings associated with staff reductions. The 1994 act also had as its
objectives more efficient operations to better carry out the Department’s
missions. Without an assessment of the overall effects of its
departmentwide streamlining efforts, USDA cannot know the extent to
which its efforts have been successful in achieving all of the objectives
mandated by the 1994 act.
USDA
USDA’s
current reorganization task—the convergence of administrative
functions at the state level for the field-based agencies—is complex and,
even under the best of circumstances, will be difficult to implement
effectively and efficiently. However, we believe that there are weaknesses
in USDA’s current plans for administrative convergence that could hinder its
successful implementation. First, while the convergence is likely to save
money in the long run, USDA has not calculated the costs associated with
implementing the plan. As a result, USDA managers lack key cost
information that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of various
actions that the Department has taken or will take in connection with
administrative convergence. Second, USDA has not yet assigned leadership
responsibilities for implementing the convergence plan. In our view, this is
14
Management Reform: Agencies’ Initial Efforts to Restructure Personnel Operations (GAO/GGD-98-93,
July 13, 1998).
Page 15
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
critical to establishing the accountability needed to help ensure the plan’s
successful implementation.
Recommendations to
Secretary of
Agriculture
To measure the economies and efficiencies gained by the departmentwide
administrative streamlining, we recommend that the Secretary of
Agriculture require the leaders for the seven mission areas, in consultation
with the Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Chief Information
Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer, to develop and implement
performance measures for the Department’s administrative operations
that assess service delivery, efficiency, and quality.
We further recommend that the Secretary direct the Undersecretaries for
the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, Natural Resources and
Environment, and Rural Development to develop cost estimates for the
complete implementation of administrative convergence.
Finally, to facilitate the effective implementation of the Administrative
Convergence Plan, we recommend that the Secretary, after approving the
implementation plan, move quickly to fill key leadership positions for the
Support Services Bureau and charge the appointed officials with the
responsibilities to carry out the plan.
Agency Comments
We provided USDA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
We met with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration; Acting
Director for Human Resources Management; and officials from the Office
of Departmental Administration, the Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Office of Inspector
General, the National Food and Agriculture Council, the Farm Service
Agency, Rural Development, and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
generally agreed with the report and our recommendations and noted
that USDA’s field-based agencies have made progress in developing certain
common policies and administrative systems for areas such as employee
recognition, evaluation of human resources management, merit
promotion, telecommuting, and work scheduling. In addition, USDA noted
that most of the savings associated with administrative consolidation will
be achieved by merging the three agencies’—FSA’s, NRCS’, and
RD’s—administrative functions, not from collocating offices. Finally, USDA
agreed with our recommendation to develop and implement performance
USDA
Page 16
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
measures to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department’s
administrative operations. However, USDA noted that it would be difficult
to develop historical baseline data for fiscal year 1993—the baseline date
established by the National Performance Review and the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994—and therefore suggested that more
recent baseline data be used to measure changes in administrative
operations. While we recognize it would be difficult to develop baseline
data for certain indicators that date back to fiscal year 1993, we continue
to believe that USDA, to the extent practicable, should develop measures
using baseline data for this time period to demonstrate the progress it has
made in streamlining the Department since the passage of the
Reorganization Act.
provided a number of technical changes and clarifications to the
report, which we have incorporated as appropriate.
USDA
Scope and
Methodology
To obtain information on USDA’s progress in reducing administrative staff
departmentwide, we interviewed administrative officials in Departmental
Administration, the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and each
mission area and reviewed relevant documents. To understand USDA’s
plans for consolidating administrative functions, we interviewed the
implementation team leader and reviewed relevant documents.
To determine USDA’s progress in consolidating state office administrative
functions for FSA, NRCS, and RD, we interviewed headquarters officials in
each agency and state office officials in five states where these agency
offices are collocated and five states where the agency offices are not
collocated. We also obtained relevant data and documentation. We also
met with the appropriate officials in USDA agencies in Kansas City and St
Louis to obtain data on the status of (1) FSA’s, NRCS’, and RD’s efforts to
collocate their state offices into single facilities; (2) the reduction of
administrative staff that has occurred since 1993; (3) USDA’s plans to
implement administrative convergence, including the benefits the
Department hopes to achieve and the problems associated with this
action; and (4) USDA’s attempts to quantify the savings associated with
streamlining efforts, including administrative convergence.
To determine USDA’s progress in measuring the savings and efficiencies
realized as a result of its departmentwide reorganization and streamlining,
we interviewed Department and agency officials involved in
Page 17
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
B-281418
reorganization and streamlining and reviewed documents pertaining to
their performance measures.
We conducted our review from May through November 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the
date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
appropriate congressional committees, Members of Congress, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others on request.
If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-5138. Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Robertson
Associate Director, Food and
Agriculture Issues
Page 18
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Page 19
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Contents
Letter
1
Appendix I
USDA’s Staff by
Mission Area, Agency
and Office for Fiscal
Years 1993 Through
1999
22
Appendix II
USDA’s Current
Departmentwide
Administrative
Support Structure
24
Appendix III
USDA’s
Departmentwide
Administrative Staff,
Fiscal Years 1993
Through 1999
26
Appendix IV
Location of
Noncollocated State
Offices
27
Appendix V
Major Contributors to
This Report
31
Page 20
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Contents
Table
Table 1. Administrative Staff for the Seven Field-Based Agencies,
Fiscal Years 1993 Through 2002
8
Figures
Figure 1: Changes in Departmentwide Administrative Staff, Fiscal
Years 1993 and 1998
Figure 2: Administrative Support Structure Before and After
Creation of the Support Services Bureau
Figure 3: Location of Collocated and Noncollocated State Offices
5
7
11
Abbreviations
FAS
FSA
GAO
NPR
NRCS
RD
USDA
Page 21
Foreign Agricultural Service
Farm Service Agency
General Accounting Office
National Performance Review
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Development
U.S. Department of Agriculture
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix I
USDA’s Staff by Mission Area, Agency and
Office for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999
Number of full-time-equivalent staff
Mission area or office
Agency
Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
(federal)
Farm Service Agency (nonfederal)
1995a
1996
1997
1998b
1999b
7,628
7,112
6,602
6,283
5,870
5,909
5,646
14,953 14,176 13,432 12,738 11,399 10,835
9,980
923
906
907
885
881
881
819
664
651
563
536
526
550
550
24,168 22,845 21,504 20,442 18,676 18,175 16,995
Rural Housing Service
8,222
7,870
7,234
6,911
6,227
6,188
6,109
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
428
419
391
331
320
328
304
Rural Utilities Service
890
891
850
765
745
764
715
7
6
7
7
6
11
11
9,547
9,186
8,482
8,014
7,298
7,291
7,139
Total
Natural Resources and Environment Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS)
Forest Service
Total
13,784 13,311 12,157 11,833 11,888 11,945 11,412
43,025 40,593 38,349 37,224 36,330 36,311 35,526
56,809 53,904 50,506 49,057 48,218 48,256 46,938
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer
Services
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety
Food Safety and Inspection Service
2,009
Marketing and Regulatory Programs Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration
Total
1,868
1,807
1,711
1,725
1,782
9,950 10,111 10,090
1,933
9,760
9,697
9,702
9,702
4,027
3,956
3,843
3,645
3,524
3,524
3,524
6,552
6,631
6,303
6,195
6,295
6,287
6,133
936
867
812
808
788
824
824
11,515 11,454 10,958 10,648 10,607 10,635 10,481
Agricultural Research Service
8,426
7,953
7,621
7,617
7,521
7,556
7,562
Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service
408
424
386
380
394
405
405
Economic Research Service
788
717
625
591
570
554
551
1,487
1,345
1,214
1,138
1,128
1,290
1,107
11,109 10,439
9,846
9,726
9,613
9,805
9,625
628
625
618
648
701
National Agricultural Statistics
Service
Total
Departmental
Administrationc
Staff offices
1994a
Risk Management Agency
Alternative Agricultural Research
and Commercialization Corporation
Research, Education, and
Economics
1993
Foreign Agricultural Service
Total
Rural Development (RD)
a
727
Office of the Secretary
710
83
72
64
66
61
82
82
1,221
1,288
1,243
1,231
1,238
1,277
1,131
Office of Chief Information Officer
297
281
279
262
246
268
271
Office of Communications
150
135
127
123
119
119
120
Office of Chief Financial Officer
(continued)
Page 22
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix I
USDA’s Staff by Mission Area, Agency and
Office for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999
Number of full-time-equivalent staff
Mission area or office
Agency
Office of Budget and Program
Analysis
1993a
1994a
1995a
1996
1997
1998b
1999b
76
72
71
72
73
70
69
Office of the Chief Economist
45
36
37
37
40
50
57
Office of the General Counsel
420
402
368
353
351
374
378
Office of Inspector General
850
825
777
754
742
750
925
National Appeals Division
152
151
132
132
133
133
133
Thrift Savings Plan
Total
Total USDA staff
367
397
408
430
445
490
502
3,661
3,659
3,506
3,460
3,448
3,613
3,668
129,495 124,241 117,388 113,539 109,886 109,850 107,031
a
Numbers adjusted to reflect mission area reorganization that occurred from 1993 to 1995.
b
Estimates.
c
Offices included under the Assistant Secretary for Administration are the Office of Administrative
Support, Board of Contract Appeals, Office of the Judicial Officer, Office of Administrative Law
Judges, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Office of
Operations, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization, and Office of Outreach.
Source: USDA’s Office of Budget and Program Analysis.
Page 23
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix II
USDA’s Current Departmentwide
Administrative Support Structure
Responsible
administrative support unit
Mission area
Agency or offices
Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services
Farm Service Agency
Farm Service Agencya
Foreign Agricultural Service
Risk Management Agency
Rural Development
Rural Housing Service
Rural Developmenta,b
Rural Business-Cooperative
Service
Rural Utilities Service
Alternative Agricultural
Research and
Commercialization
Corporation
Natural Resources and
Environment
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Natural Resources
Conservation Servicea
Forest Service
Forest Service
Food, Nutrition, and
Consumer Services
Food and Nutrition Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety
Food Safety and Inspection
Service
Food Safety and Inspection
Service
Marketing and Regulatory
Programs
Agricultural Marketing
Service
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards
Administration
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service
Research, Education, and
Economics
Agricultural Research
Service
Cooperative State
Research, Education, and
Extension Service
Economics Research
Service
National Agricultural
Statistics Service
Agricultural Research
Service
Other staff offices and
activitiesc
Departmental Administration
(Table notes on next page)
Page 24
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix II
USDA’s Current Departmentwide
Administrative Support Structure
a
Administrative support for these agencies will be provided by the Support Services Bureau when
the Administrative Convergence Plan is implemented.
b
Administrative support staff are located at the Rural Housing Service, but report to the Rural
Development mission area.
c
Offices and activities include the Office of Congressional Relations, Office of Administrative
Support, Board of Contract Appeals, Office of the Judicial Officer, Office of Administrative Law
Judges, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Procurement and Property Management, Office of
Operations, Office of Human Resources Management, Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization, Office of Outreach, Office of the Secretary, Office of Chief Financial Officer,
Office of Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications, Office of Budget and Program
Analysis, Office of the Chief Economist, Office of the General Counsel, National Appeals Division,
and Thrift Savings Plan. The Office of Inspector General provides its own administrative support.
Source: USDA documents.
Page 25
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix III
USDA’s Departmentwide Administrative
Staff, Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1999
Number of full-time-equivalent staff
Administrative function
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998a
1999a
Accountants and Auditors
2,983
2,833
2,676
2,565
2,507
2,675
2,583
Acquisition
2,569
2,474
2,288
2,211
1,996
2,108
2,050
Budgeting
2,012
1,953
1,748
1,657
1,562
1,702
1,670
Personnel
2,744
2,593
2,353
2,248
2,202
2,299
2,227
10,308
9,853
9,065
8,681
8,267
8,784
8,530
Total
a
Estimates.
Source: USDA data, based on National Performance Review categories of administrative
functions.
Page 26
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV
Location of Noncollocated State Offices
State offices less than 50 miles apart
State
Agency
Address
Alaska
NRCS
949 East 36th Avenue
Anchorage
FSA
RD
800 West Evergreen
Palmer
NRCS
RD
3003 North Central Avenue
Phoenix
FSA
77 East Thomas Road
Phoenix
NRCS
16 Professional Park Road
Storrs
FSA
88 Day Hill Road
Windsor
FSA
NRCS
1201-03 College Park Drive
Dover
RD
5201 South DuPont Highway
Camden
NRCS
RD
Federal Building
210 Walnut Street
Des Moines
FSA
10500 Buena Vista Court
Des Moines
NRCS
5 Godfrey Drive
Orono
FSA
RD
444 Stillwater Avenue
Bangor
NRCS
339 Busch’s Frontage Road
Annapolis
FSA
8335 Guilford Road
Columbia
NRCS
1045 South Harrison Road
East Lansing
FSA
RD
3001 Coolidge Road
East Lansing
NRCS
RD
Federal Building
100 West Capitol Street
Jackson
FSA
6310 I-55 North
Jackson
FSA
NRCS
Federal Building
10 East Babcock
Bozeman
RD
900 Technology Boulevard
Bozeman
Arizona
Connecticuta
Delaware
Iowa
Maine
Marylandb
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
(continued)
Page 27
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV
Location of Noncollocated State Offices
State offices less than 50 miles apart
State
Agency
Address
Nebraska
NRCS
RD
Federal Building
100 Centennial Mall
Lincoln
FSA
7131 A Street
Lincoln
NRCS
5301 Longley Lane
Reno
FSA
1755 East Plumb Lane
Reno
RD
1390 South Curry Street
Carson City
NRCS
Federal Building
2 Madbury Street
Durham
FSA
22 Bridge Street
Concord
NRCS
1370 Hamilton Street
Somerset
FSA
Mastoris Professional Plaza
Route 130
Bordentown
RD
Tarnsfield Plaza
790 Woodlane Road
Mt. Holly
NRCS
RD
101 Southwest Main Street
Portland
FSA
7620 Southwest Mowhawk
Tualatin
NRCS
IBM Building
654 Munoz Rivera Avenue
Hato Rey
FSA
1607 Ponce de Leon
Avenue
Santurce
RD
New San Juan Office
Building 159 Carlos E.
Chardon Street
Hato Rey
NRCS
RD
Strom Thurmond Federal
Building
1835 Assembly Street
Columbia
FSA
1927 Thurmond Mall
Columbia
Nevadac
New Hampshired
New Jersey
Oregon
Puerto Rico
South Carolina
(continued)
Page 28
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV
Location of Noncollocated State Offices
State offices less than 50 miles apart
State
Agency
Address
Tennessee
FSA
NRCS
US Court House
801 Broadway
Nashville
RD
3322 West End Avenue
Nashville
NRCS
69 Union Street
Winooski
FSA
346 Shelburne Street
Burlington
RD
City Center
89 Main Sreet
Montpelier
NRCS
RD
Federal Building
100 East B Street
Casper
FSA
951 Werner Count
Casper
Vermont
Wyoming
State office locations greater than 50 miles apart
Alabama
Hawaii
Illinois
Kansas
North Dakota
NRCS
3381 Skyway Drive
Auburn
FSA
RD
4121 Carmichael Road
Montgomery
FSA
NRCS
Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu
RD
Federal Building
154 Waianuenue Avenue
Hilo
FSA
3500 Wabash Avenue
Springfield
NRCS
1902 Fox Drive
Champaign
RD
1817 South Neil Street
Champaign
NRCS
760 South Broadway
Salina
FSA
3600 Anderson Avenue
Manhattan
RD
1200 Southwest Executive
Drive
Topeka
NRCS
RD
220 East Rosser Avenue
Bismark
FSA
1025 28th Street
Fargo
(continued)
Page 29
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix IV
Location of Noncollocated State Offices
State offices less than 50 miles apart
State
Agency
Address
Texas
NRCS
RD
101 South Main Street
Temple
FSA
2405 Texas Avenue South
College Station
FSA
NRCS
Rock Point Tower II
West 316 Boone Avenue
Spokane
RD
1825 Black Lake Boulevard
Olympia
FSA
NRCS
6515 Watts Road
Madison
RD
4949 Kirschling Court
Stevens Point
Washington
Wisconsin
a
RD field offices served by Massachusetts state office.
b
RD field offices served by Delaware state office.
c
FSA field offices served by Idaho state office.
d
RD field offices served by Vermont state office.
Source: USDA documents.
Page 30
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Appendix V
Major Contributors to This Report
Resources,
Community, and
Economic
Development Division
Ronald E. Maxon Jr, Assistant Director
John C. Smith, Evaluator-in-Charge
Robert G. Hammons
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman
(150748)
Page 31
GAO/RCED-99-34 USDA’s Administrative Streamlining
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. G100